People v. Delgado
214 Cal. App. 4th 914
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Realignment Act § 1170, subd. (h) directs most felons to county jail instead of state prison, with exceptions for prior serious or violent felonies.
- Act is silent on prior juvenile adjudications and may interact with the Three Strikes law, which requires state prison for serious/violent felonies.
- Delgado, with two juvenile-adjudication serious/violent strikes, pled guilty to resisting an executive officer and contested custody credit and sentence.
- Trial court refused to apply the Act to Delgado, arguing the Three Strikes supermajority rule cannot be overridden by realignment.
- Court addresses whether the Act can exclude offenders with juvenile strikes and whether Delgado is entitled to presentence credit and a high-term sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Can the Realignment Act override Three Strikes for juveniles? | Delgado contends Act may realign housing without amending Three Strikes. | State argues Act cannot override Three Strikes without supermajority or voter approval. | Act cannot amend Three Strikes; juvenile-strike offender may not be jailed under Act |
| May the Act exclude felons with juvenile adjudications from county jail? | Act excludes some felons; may exclude juvenile-adjudication serious/violent felonies. | Legislature did not expressly permit exclusion for juvenile adjudications. | Felons with juvenile adjudications involving serious/violent felonies may not receive county jail commitments |
| Did the Legislature lack power to amend Three Strikes via the Act without full voting requirements? | Act addresses housing, not sentence; no need for supermajority. | Legislature cannot amend Three Strikes without voter approval or supermajority. | Court held Legislature lacked power to amend Three Strikes without the required approval |
| Presentence custody credit entitlement for Delgado? | DJJ transfered custody was nonpunitive; credit should accrue. | Credit arguments disputed by responding party. | Delgado entitled to 378 days presentence credit (252 actual + 126 conduct) |
| Was the high-term sentence within the trial court’s discretion? | Delgado argues six-year term inappropriate given mental health and rehabilitation concerns. | Court found aggravating factors outweighed mitigations. | Trial court did not abuse discretion; upper term affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Kelly, 47 Cal.4th 1008 (Cal. 2010) (initiative power preservation; legislative amendment limits)
- People v. Carmony, 33 Cal.4th 367 (Cal. 2004) (abuse of discretion standard for upper-term review)
- In re Aline D., 14 Cal.3d 557 (Cal. 1975) (presentence credit when DJJ custody nonpunitive)
- In re Charles C., 232 Cal.App.3d 952 (Cal. App. 1991) (presentence credit and custody attribution principles)
- People v. Superior Court (Romero), 13 Cal.4th 497 (Cal. 1996) (liberal construction to protect initiative power; juv adjudications)
- Central Delta Water Agency v. State Water Resources Control Bd., 17 Cal.App.4th 621 (Cal. App. 1993) (strong evidence principle when legislative amendments omit provisions)